Perhaps but it's far easier to imagine it's the result of knee jerk over classification which is well understood to be a terrible problem through the organs of the body politic.
It's the NSA. It's espionage.
These things tend to be classified by default.
So, I'm not suspicious it's some arbitrary thing, like the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating.
"Classified by default" is semantically equivalent to "knee-jerk reaction". Nobody is claiming it's arbitrary. The claim is instead that it's systematic, and stupidly so to the point where it may well be the type of ham sandwiches agent Boy Scout was eating. Wouldn't be the first time...
It's "classified by default" out of concern for a certain principle, ergo the act of classification is applied in a knee-jerk (i.e. thoughtless, reflexive) manner.
Semantic argument is semantic.
As a concept, it's similar to policies in corporate offices where doors are locked and guests can only walk in through a reception, accompanied by a trusted employee. Yes, you're applying a process that is unnecessary in 95 % of cases, but still it's one of the "best practices" in the business.
The process is as follows:
1) Rational, principled decision: "when in doubt, classify"
2) Conservative application: "I'll just classify everything to avoid 'misses'"
3) Everything gets classified because nobody ever got fired for classifying
Treat it as a signal detection problem. There's obvious incentive to avoid "misses" (i.e. not classifying things that should be classified) so people produce many false alarms (i.e. classifying things that should be public knowledge).
This hi-lights a problem with current doctrine: "classify by default" has unintended consequences, namely a creeping increase in non-transparency.
Further, and returning to the original point: since reflexive classification happens as a result of official doctrine, the two are semantically equivalent and this discussion is officially running around in circles.